DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application filed on July 10, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference character ‘330’ in Figure 3 and reference characters ‘523’ and ‘526’ in Figure 5. Also, the text in box 326 in Figure 3 as well as the text in box 526 in Figure 5 contain a typo: “Do note” should read “Do not.” Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0041], in line 7, recites “logs 150.” It should read – logs 185 --.
Paragraph [0047], in line 1 & line 2, recites “Figs. 2A-8.” It should read -- Figs. 2A-B --.
Paragraph [0068], in line 1, recites “At block 284.” It should read – At block 268 --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, in line 3, recites “medical application authorized.” It should read -- medical application is authorized --.
Claim 13, in line 4, recites “base.” It should read – based --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites, in line 4, the limitation “the medical software.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets the limitation as – a medical software – in Claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 1 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a system, which is a machine, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites the limitations:
determine whether one or more selection criteria associated with the second version of the medical application are satisfied.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
a computing device comprising a memory and one or more processors, the computing device configured to.
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing selection criteria and a second version of a medical application using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to mentally determine whether the selection criteria associated with the second version of the medical application is satisfied. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element:
a computing device comprising a memory and one or more processors, the computing device configured to.
The additional element (1) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The computing device comprising a memory and one or more processors are used as tools to perform the receiving, determining, and executing steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
receive a command to execute a medical application having a plurality of versions, the plurality of versions comprising at least a first version and a second version.
The additional element (2) is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
responsive to determining that the one or more selection criteria are satisfied, execute the second version of the medical application.
The additional element (3) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the idea of executing the second version of the medical application in response to determining the one or more selection criteria are satisfied without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the execution solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of executing the second version of the medical application in response to determining the one or more selection criteria are satisfied with no restriction on how the execution is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the execution, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional element:
a computing device comprising a memory and one or more processors, the computing device configured to.
The additional element (1) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
receive a command to execute a medical application having a plurality of versions, the plurality of versions comprising at least a first version and a second version.
The additional element (2) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive a command. Therefore, the limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
responsive to determining that the one or more selection criteria are satisfied, execute the second version of the medical application.
The additional element (3) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of executing the second version of the medical application in response to determining the one or more selection criteria are satisfied with no restriction on how the execution is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the execution, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities, and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more for at least the reasons stated above.
Claim 2 recites the limitation:
wherein a single version of the medical application is exposed to users.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 3 recites the limitations:
wherein the computing device is further configured to;
determining that the one or more selection criteria are not satisfied;
responsive to […] execute the first version of the medical application.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 4 recites the limitation:
wherein the first version is a production version of the medical application, and wherein the second version is a test version of the medical application.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 5 recites the limitations:
wherein the computing device is further configured to;
determine whether the test version of the medical application satisfies one or more promotion criteria; and
responsive to determining that the test version of the medical application satisfies the one or more promotion criteria, promote the test version of the medical software to a new production version of the medical application.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 6 recites the limitations:
wherein the computing device is further configured to;
determining that each of the plurality of versions of the medical application are prohibited from use;
responsive to […] output an error.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 7 recites the limitations:
wherein the computing device is further configured to;
determine an additional medical application that depends on the medical application or on which the medical application depends, the additional medical application having a plurality of versions;
determine a version of the plurality of versions of the additional medical application that satisfies one or more additional selection criteria; and
execute the determined version of the additional medical application.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 8 recites the limitation:
wherein determining the version of the plurality of versions of the additional medical application that satisfies the one or more additional selection criteria comprises: determining that the version of the additional medical application is a highest version of the additional medical application that is associated with the second version of the medical application.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 9 recites the limitations:
wherein the computing device is further configured to;
determine whether the second version of the medical application is on a blacklist, wherein an execution criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied by the second version of the medical application not being on the blacklist.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 10 recites the limitations:
wherein the computing device is further configured to;
determine a user account associated with the command to execute the medical application; and
determine whether the user account is authorized to execute the second version of the medical application, wherein an execution criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied by the user account being authorized to execute the second version of the medical application.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 11 recites the limitations:
wherein the computing device is further configured to;
determine a current geographic region; and
determine whether the second version of the medical application authorized for use in the current geographic region, wherein an execution criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied by the second version of the medical application being authorized for use in the current geographic region.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 12 recites the limitations:
wherein the computing device is further configured to;
determine a number of instances of the second version of the medical application being run; and
determine whether the number of instances of the second version of the medical application is below a threshold, wherein an execution criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied by the number of instances of the second version of the medical application being below the threshold.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 13 recites the limitations:
wherein the computing device is further configured to;
determine a patient record to be accessed by the medical application; and
determine whether the patient record was previously accessed using any version of the medical application, wherein a criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied base on at least one of a) the patient record having been previously accessed by the second version of the medical application or b) the patient record not having been accessed by any other version of the medical application.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 14 recites the limitations:
wherein the computing device is further configured to
determine a number of problems associated with the second version of the medical application; and
determine whether the number of problems associated with the second version of the medical application is below a threshold, wherein an execution criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied by the number of problems associated with the second version of the medical application being below the threshold.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 15 recites the limitations:
wherein the computing device is further configured to;
determine a patient record to be accessed by the medical application;
determine one or more details of the patient record; and
determine which of the plurality of versions of the medical application to execute based at least in part on the one or more details of the patient record.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 16 recites the limitation:
wherein the one or more details comprise at least one of a region identity, a doctor identity, a type of treatment, or a user account.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 17 recites the limitation:
wherein the medical application comprises at least one of a restorative dental treatment planning application or an orthodontic treatment planning operation.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 18 recites the limitations:
wherein the computing device is further configured to;
receive instructions to configure the one or more selection criteria;
translate the instructions into a programming language; and
update the one or more selection criteria based on the translated instructions.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 19 recites the limitations:
wherein the computing device is further configured to;
update the one or more selection criteria without redeployment or reinstallation of any of the plurality of versions of the medical application.
These claims are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claims 3, 5-15, and 18-19 (additional element (b) recited in Claim 3, additional element (b) recited in Claim 5, additional element (b) recited in Claim 6, additional elements (b) and (c) recited in Claim 7, additional element (a) recited in Claim 8, additional element (b) recited in Claim 9, additional elements (b) and (c) recited in Claim 10, additional elements (b) and (c) recited in Claim 11, additional elements (b) and (c) recited in Claim 12, additional elements (b) and (c) recited in Claim 13, additional elements (b) and (c) recited in Claim 14, additional elements (b)-(d) recited in Claim 15, additional elements (c) and (d) recited in Claim 18, and additional element (b) recited in Claim 19) recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claims 2-7 and 9-19 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception. Specifically, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 3, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 5, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 6, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 7, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 9, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 10, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 11, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 12, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 13, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 14, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 15, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 18, and the additional element (a) recited in Claim 19 fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element (a) recited in Claim 4, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 16, and the additional element (a) recited in Claim 17 fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional element (a) recited in Claim 2, the additional element (c) recited in Claim 6, and the additional element (b) recited in Claim 18 fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they are mere data gathering/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element (c) recited in Claim 3, the additional element (c) recited in Claim 5, and the additional element (d) recited in Claim 7 fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, Claims 2-19 when considered both individually and as a combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements recited in Claims 2-19 are also not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, Claims 3, 5-15, and 18-19 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they recite further mental steps that fail to make the claim any less abstract.
The additional element (a) recited in Claim 3, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 5, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 6, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 7, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 9, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 10, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 11, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 12, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 13, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 14, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 15, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 18, and the additional element (a) recited in Claim 19 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element (a) recited in Claim 4, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 16, and the additional element (a) recited in Claim 17 do not amount to significantly more because they amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional element (a) recited in Claim 2, the additional element (c) recited in Claim 6, and the additional element (b) recited in Claim 18 do not amount to significantly more because they are mere data gathering/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities which simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to output/expose a version of an application to users, output an error, and receive instructions.
The additional element (c) recited in Claim 3, the additional element (c) recited in Claim 5, and the additional element (d) recited in Claim 7 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, Claims 2-19 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception that would convert Claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 1-19 are therefore not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 20 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 20 is directed to a computer-readable medium, which is an article of manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 20 recites the limitations:
determining whether one or more selection criteria associated with the second version of the medical application are satisfied.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising.
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing selection criteria and a second version of a medical application using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to mentally determine whether the selection criteria associated with the second version of the medical application is satisfied. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element:
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising.
The additional element (1) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The non-transitory computer readable medium and processing device are used as tools to perform the receiving, determining, and executing steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
receiving a command to execute a medical application having a plurality of versions, the plurality of versions comprising at least a first version and a second version.
The additional element (2) is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
responsive to determining that the one or more selection criteria are satisfied, executing the second version of the medical application.
The additional element (3) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the idea of executing the second version of the medical application in response to determining the one or more selection criteria are satisfied without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the execution solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of executing the second version of the medical application in response to determining the one or more selection criteria are satisfied with no restriction on how the execution is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the execution, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional element:
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising.
The additional element (1) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
receiving a command to execute a medical application having a plurality of versions, the plurality of versions comprising at least a first version and a second version.
The additional element (2) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive a command. Therefore, the limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
responsive to determining that the one or more selection criteria are satisfied, executing the second version of the medical application.
The additional element (3) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of executing the second version of the medical application in response to determining the one or more selection criteria are satisfied with no restriction on how the execution is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the execution, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities, and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10-11, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0334091 (hereinafter “Gujarathi”) in view of US 2017/0011182 (hereinafter “Whitehurst”).
As per Claim 1, Gujarathi discloses:
A system comprising:
a computing device comprising a memory and one or more processors (paragraph [0045], “The device 210 can include a processor 204. The processor 204 can include non-volatile memory that stores computer instructions and an operating system. For example, the computer instructions can be executed by the processor 204 out of volatile memory to perform all or part of the method 300.”), the computing device configured to:
receive a command to execute [an application] having a plurality of versions, the plurality of versions comprising at least a first version and a second version (abstract, “A computing device can receive a request from a client device to launch [execute] an application. The request can include an identifier that indicates multiple versions of the application are accessible in which to launch the application (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0042], “For example, the device can identify different versions of an application available or accessible to a user of a client device, including but not limited to, local versions, hosted versions and/or SaaS versions.”);
determine whether one or more selection criteria associated with the second version of the [application] are satisfied (paragraph [0003], “The device can, responsive to the icon selection, identify and determine a version of the application to provide to the user based in part on a context of the user (e.g., location, device), context of a client device, and/or attributes of the selected application (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0025], “The attributes (e.g., access rules) for the application can include restrictions on types of users, restrictions on types of devices, restrictions on access times, and/or restrictions based in part on connection properties. The device can execute one or more access algorithms to compare and/or analyze the context of the user and/or client device in view of the attributes of the application. The device can, using the access algorithms, generate a score value for a user or client device to access individual versions of the application associated with the selected common icon.”; paragraph [0026], “In embodiments, the device can select a version of the application to provide or launch for the user based in part on the generated score value for a user and/or client device. The device can determine whether to allow/provide access to a version of an application or deny/prevent access to one or more versions of an application based in part on the context of the user and/or the client device and/or the attributes of the application (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0073], “The device 210 can determine if the first version [second version] 222 indicated by the order is available and select the first version 222 […] If the first version 222 indicated is not available, the device 210 can continue to the next or subsequent version indicated by the order until the device 210 identifies a version 222 available to the user of the client device 202 and/or the client device 202.”); and
responsive to determining that the one or more selection criteria are satisfied, execute the second version of the [application] (paragraph [0026], “In embodiments, the device can select a version of the application to provide or launch for the user based in part on the generated score value for a user and/or client device. The device can determine whether to allow/provide access to a version of an application or deny/prevent access to one or more versions of an application based in part on the context of the user and/or the client device and/or the attributes of the application.”; paragraph [0042], “The device can provide or launch [execute] the selected version of the application to the user through the client device (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0073], “The device 210 can determine if the first version 222 indicated by the order is available and select the first version 222 […] If the first version 222 indicated is not available, the device 210 can continue to the next or subsequent version indicated by the order until the device 210 identifies a version 222 available to the user of the client device 202 and/or the client device 202.”).
Gujarathi does not explicitly disclose:
a medical application.
However, Whitehurst discloses:
a medical application (abstract, “Methods include selection of a first set of health related apps by a physician for use in treatment or diagnosis of a health condition, selection of an app from the first set by the patient with a first portable device (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0005] “Methods of the present invention pertain to prescribed health related applications for use on a portable computing device of a patient that utilize a patient's personal health data to provide improved treatment and diagnosis of the patient (emphasis added).”).
Gujarathi is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the selection of a version of an application among multiple versions. Whitehurst is also within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the utilization of medical applications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Whitehurst into the teaching of Gujarathi to include “a medical application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize prescribed health related applications, for use in treatment or diagnosis, by a physician and allow a patient to choose from those applications in order to provide patients with more flexibility and personalized treatment which also improves patient compliance (Whitehurst, paragraph [0005]).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Gujarathi discloses “wherein a single version of the [application] is exposed to users (paragraph [0023], “Systems and methods are provided herein for aggregating multiple versions of a common application to provide to a user a single common icon associated with the different versions of the application. A device can receive a selection from the user through the common icon and identify at least one version of the application to provide the user based in part on a context of the user, context of a client device and attributes of an application. The device can identify one or more versions of an application available or accessible to the user (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0025], “The device can receive a selection of a common icon for an application and determine which version of the application to provide to the user such that the user does not have to provide any further input to identify the correct or appropriate version of the selected application.”),” but does not explicitly disclose:
the medical application.
However, Whitehurst discloses:
the medical application (abstract, “Methods include selection of a first set of health related apps by a physician for use in treatment or diagnosis of a health condition, selection of an app from the first set by the patient with a first portable device (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0005] “Methods of the present invention pertain to prescribed health related applications for use on a portable computing device of a patient that utilize a patient's personal health data to provide improved treatment and diagnosis of the patient (emphasis added).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Whitehurst into the teaching of Gujarathi to include “the medical application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize prescribed health related applications, for use in treatment or diagnosis, by a physician and allow a patient to choose from those applications in order to provide patients with more flexibility and personalized treatment which also improves patient compliance (Whitehurst, paragraph [0005]).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Gujarathi discloses “responsive to determining that the one or more selection criteria are not satisfied, execute the first version of the [application] (paragraph [0026], “The device can provide the user with a local version [first version] (e.g., local to the client device) of the application on the client device in response to the user being outside the geo-fence boundary established [one or more selection criteria are not satisfied] to access the other versions [second version] of the application (emphasis added).”),” but does not explicitly disclose:
the medical application.
However, Whitehurst discloses:
the medical application (abstract, “Methods include selection of a first set of health related apps by a physician for use in treatment or diagnosis of a health condition, selection of an app from the first set by the patient with a first portable device (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0005] “Methods of the present invention pertain to prescribed health related applications for use on a portable computing device of a patient that utilize a patient's personal health data to provide improved treatment and diagnosis of the patient (emphasis added).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Whitehurst into the teaching of Gujarathi to include “the medical application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize prescribed health related applications, for use in treatment or diagnosis, by a physician and allow a patient to choose from those applications in order to provide patients with more flexibility and personalized treatment which also improves patient compliance (Whitehurst, paragraph [0005]).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Gujarathi discloses “responsive to determining that each of the plurality of versions of the [application] are prohibited from use, output an error (paragraph [0022], “For example, the user may select an incorrect version and receive a message from the client device indicating that the selected version cannot be provided due to one or more security rules associated with the selected version of the application (e.g., client device outside approved geo-location) or the selected version cannot be accessed from the respective client device (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0081], “The device 210 can use or execute per-application controls (e.g., per-application VPN controls) and/or container-local controls, for example, to block or prevent the launching of an application 220 is the user of the client device 202 and/or the client device 202 is assigned a score 230 less than a contextual access threshold 232 and therefore, does not meet a contextual access threshold 232 […] The device 210 can provide criteria to the client device 202 indicating that access to the requested version 222 of the application 220 is denied. For example, in one embodiment, the criteria can indicate that the user does not have proper authorization to access the requested version 222 of the application 220 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0082], “Referring now to operation (324), and in some embodiments, a version can be selected.”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Gujarathi discloses receiving a message (error output) that a selected version can’t be provided (prohibited from use) and providing criteria to the client device that indicates the user doesn’t have the authorization to access the requested version (outputting an error). Gujarathi also discloses that a version can be selected in some embodiments. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that there are embodiments where a version can’t be selected due to the user not having the authorization to access the versions of the application meaning a message/criteria indicating the user can’t access the versions of the application is outputted when each of the plurality of versions are prohibited from use.],” but does not explicitly disclose:
the medical application.
However, Whitehurst discloses:
the medical application (abstract, “Methods include selection of a first set of health related apps by a physician for use in treatment or diagnosis of a health condition, selection of an app from the first set by the patient with a first portable device (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0005] “Methods of the present invention pertain to prescribed health related applications for use on a portable computing device of a patient that utilize a patient's personal health data to provide improved treatment and diagnosis of the patient (emphasis added).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Whitehurst into the teaching of Gujarathi to include “the medical application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize prescribed health related applications, for use in treatment or diagnosis, by a physician and allow a patient to choose from those applications in order to provide patients with more flexibility and personalized treatment which also improves patient compliance (Whitehurst, paragraph [0005]).
As per Claim 10, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Gujarathi discloses “determine a user account associated with the command to execute the [application] (paragraph [0050], “The device 210 can determine a context 234 of a user (e.g., user 426 of FIG. 4B). The context 234 can include one or more of the following: identification of a user, a user profile […].”; abstract, “A computing device can receive a request from a client device to launch [execute] an application. The request can include an identifier that indicates multiple versions of the application are accessible in which to launch the application.”); and determine whether the user account is authorized to execute the second version of the [application], wherein an execution criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied by the user account being authorized to execute the second version of the [application] (paragraph [0026], “In embodiments, the device can select a version of the application to provide or launch for the user based in part on the generated score value for a user and/or client device. The device can determine whether to allow/provide access to a version of an application or deny/prevent access to one or more versions of an application based in part on the context of the user and/or the client device and/or the attributes of the application (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0050], “The device 210 can determine a context 234 of a user (e.g., user 426 of FIG. 4B). The context 234 can include one or more of the following: identification of a user, a user profile […] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0025], “The attributes (e.g., access rules) for the application can include restrictions on types of users, restrictions on types of devices, restrictions on access times, and/or restrictions based in part on connection properties.”; paragraph [0069], “In some embodiments, the device 210 can compare an authorization level or security level of the user of the client device 202 and/or the client device 202 to determine a number of versions 222 of an application 220 available to the user of the client device 202 and/or the client device 202. For example, the authorization level can indicate which versions 222 (e.g., only local version, only hosted version and SaaS version) of an application 220 that a client device 202 or user of the client device 202 can access.”; paragraph [0073], “The device 210 can determine if the first version 222 indicated by the order is available and select the first version 222. The device 210 can determine availability based in part on if the version 222 exists (e.g., does a local version exist, does a hosted version exist) and/or an authorization level (e.g., authorized to use indicated version) of the user of the client device 202 and/or the client device 202. If the first version 222 indicated is not available, the device 210 can continue to the next or subsequent version indicated by the order until the device 210 identifies a version 222 available to the user of the client device 202 and/or the client device 202.”),” but does not explicitly disclose:
the medical application.
However, Whitehurst discloses:
the medical application (abstract, “Methods include selection of a first set of health related apps by a physician for use in treatment or diagnosis of a health condition, selection of an app from the first set by the patient with a first portable device (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0005] “Methods of the present invention pertain to prescribed health related applications for use on a portable computing device of a patient that utilize a patient's personal health data to provide improved treatment and diagnosis of the patient (emphasis added).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Whitehurst into the teaching of Gujarathi to include “the medical application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize prescribed health related applications, for use in treatment or diagnosis, by a physician and allow a patient to choose from those applications in order to provide patients with more flexibility and personalized treatment which also improves patient compliance (Whitehurst, paragraph [0005]).
As per Claim 11, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Gujarathi discloses “determine a current geographic region (paragraph [0050], “The device 210 can determine a context 234 of a user (e.g., user 426 of FIG. 4B). The context 234 can include one or more of the following: identification of a user, a user profile, a location of the user, a time of day, a location of a client device 202 […].”); and determine whether the second version of the [application] authorized for use in the current geographic region, wherein an execution criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied by the second version of the [application] being authorized for use in the current geographic region (paragraph [0026], “In embodiments, the device can select a version of the application to provide or launch [execute] for the user based in part on the generated score value for a user and/or client device. The device can determine whether to allow/provide access to a version of an application or deny/prevent access to one or more versions of an application based in part on the context of the user and/or the client device and/or the attributes of the application (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0050], “The device 210 can determine a context 234 of a user (e.g., user 426 of FIG. 4B). The context 234 can include one or more of the following: identification of a user, a user profile, a location of the user, a time of day, a location of a client device 202 […].”; paragraph [0051], “The attributes 224 can be compared to a context 234 of a user and/or client device 202 to determine if the respective user and/or client device 202 can access a particular version 222 of the application 220 […] For example, in one embodiment, the authorization level or security level can indicate that the client device 202 should be within a particular geo-location to access a version 222 of an application 220 […] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0086], “For example, in embodiments, the criteria can indicate that the user is permitted access to a version 222 of the application 220 based in part on the user of the client device 202 having an appropriate authorization level, the client device 202 being a compliant type of device (e.g., includes required security credentials, security protections), the client device 202 is within an approved geo-location and/or the request 2108 was received within an approved time range (emphasis added).”),” but does not explicitly disclose:
the medical application.
However, Whitehurst discloses:
the medical application (abstract, “Methods include selection of a first set of health related apps by a physician for use in treatment or diagnosis of a health condition, selection of an app from the first set by the patient with a first portable device (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0005] “Methods of the present invention pertain to prescribed health related applications for use on a portable computing device of a patient that utilize a patient's personal health data to provide improved treatment and diagnosis of the patient (emphasis added).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Whitehurst into the teaching of Gujarathi to include “the medical application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize prescribed health related applications, for use in treatment or diagnosis, by a physician and allow a patient to choose from those applications in order to provide patients with more flexibility and personalized treatment which also improves patient compliance (Whitehurst, paragraph [0005]).
As per Claim 15, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Gujarathi discloses “determine one or more details of the [context] (paragraph [0050], “The device 210 can determine a context 234 of a user (e.g., user 426 of FIG. 4B). The context 234 can include one or more of the following: identification of a user, a user profile, a location of the user, a time of day, a location of a client device 202 […].”); and determine which of the plurality of versions of the [application] to execute based at least in part on the one or more details of the [context] (paragraph [0003], “The device can, responsive to the icon selection, identify and determine a version of the application to provide to the user based in part on a context of the user (e.g., location, device), context of a client device, and/or attributes of the selected application.”; paragraph [0026], “In embodiments, the device can select a version of the application to provide or launch for the user based in part on the generated score value for a user and/or client device. The device can determine whether to allow/provide access to a version of an application or deny/prevent access to one or more versions of an application based in part on the context of the user and/or the client device and/or the attributes of the application.”; paragraph [0051], “The attributes 224 can be compared to a context 234 of a user and/or client device 202 to determine if the respective user and/or client device 202 can access a particular version 222 of the application 220 […] For example, in one embodiment, the authorization level or security level can indicate that the client device 202 should be within a particular geo-location to access a version 222 of an application 220 and/or that only users of a particular group (e.g., a group or administrative level to which the user belongs) can access a version 222 of an application 220.”),” but does not explicitly disclose:
determine a patient record to be accessed by the medical application;
determine one or more details of the patient record; and
determine which of the plurality of versions of the medical application to execute based at least in part on the one or more details of the patient record.
However, Whitehurst discloses:
determine a patient record to be accessed by the medical application (paragraph [0040], “In one aspect, the first-party framework 103 identifies health information data authorized by the patient for use by the selected prescribed application as Authorized Data 150 […] Typically, once authorization and permissions are set by the patient, or once the default authorizations or permissions are accepted, no further authorization or permissions are needed during subsequent use of the selected prescribed applications to allow the selected prescribed application to access the authorized patient data and/or to communicate the authorized health data or processed derivate data to the physician for use in treatment and/or diagnosis (emphasis added).”);
the patient record (see previous citation); and
the medical application (see previous citation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Whitehurst into the teaching of Gujarathi to include “determine a patient record to be accessed by the medical application; determine one or more details of the patient record; and determine which of the plurality of versions of the medical application to execute based at least in part on the one or more details of the patient record.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize authorizations/permissions for a medical application to access authorized patient data to ensure sensitive patient information is only accessed by authorized applications (Whitehurst, paragraph [0040]).
As per Claim 16, the rejection of Claim 15 is incorporated; and Gujarathi further discloses:
wherein the one or more details comprise at least one of a region identity, a doctor identity, a type of treatment, or a user account (paragraph [0050], “The device 210 can determine a context 234 of a user (e.g., user 426 of FIG. 4B). The context 234 can include one or more of the following: identification of a user, a user profile, a location of the user, a time of day, a location of a client device 202 […].”).
As per Claim 20, Gujarathi discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device (paragraph [0045], “In some embodiments, the device 210 can include a non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising instructions that, when executed by the processor 204 of the device 210, cause the processor 204 to perform all or part of the method 300.”), cause the processing device to perform operations comprising: […].
Claim 20 is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim corresponding to system Claim 1 and the remainder of Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gujarathi in view of Whitehurst as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 11,288,175 (hereinafter “Balmakhtar”).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Gujarathi does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first version is a production version of the medical application, and wherein the second version is a test version of the medical application.
However, Whitehurst discloses:
the medical application (abstract, “Methods include selection of a first set of health related apps by a physician for use in treatment or diagnosis of a health condition, selection of an app from the first set by the patient with a first portable device (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0005] “Methods of the present invention pertain to prescribed health related applications for use on a portable computing device of a patient that utilize a patient's personal health data to provide improved treatment and diagnosis of the patient (emphasis added).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Whitehurst into the teaching of Gujarathi to include “the medical application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize prescribed health related applications, for use in treatment or diagnosis, by a physician and allow a patient to choose from those applications in order to provide patients with more flexibility and personalized treatment which also improves patient compliance (Whitehurst, paragraph [0005]).
The combination of Gujarathi and Whitehurst does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first version is a production version of the medical application, and wherein the second version is a test version of the medical application.
However, Balmakhtar discloses:
wherein the first version is a production version of the [application], and wherein the second version is a test version of the [application] (col. 6 lines 2-8, “The test application 124 may be a new version [test version] of the first version [production version] of the production application 106a. It is understood that the test application 124 may be modified during an on-going testing process many times before it reaches a final approved form and is deemed ready for propagation to the production environment 102 as a second version of the production application 106b (emphasis added).”).
Balmakhtar is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the utilization of both test and production versions of applications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Balmakhtar into the combined teachings of Gujarathi and Whitehurst to include “wherein the first version is a production version of the medical application, and wherein the second version is a test version of the medical application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a test and production version of an application in order to “thoroughly test and qualify a new version of a computer application in a test environment” before promoting it to a production version to avoid the significant risk of introducing errors/bugs into applications when modifying them (Balmakhtar, col. 1 lines 27-38).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 4 is incorporated; and Gujarathi does not explicitly disclose:
determine whether the test version of the medical application satisfies one or more promotion criteria; and
responsive to determining that the test version of the medical application satisfies the one or more promotion criteria, promote the test version of the medical software to a new production version of the medical application.
However, Whitehurst discloses:
the medical application (abstract, “Methods include selection of a first set of health related apps by a physician for use in treatment or diagnosis of a health condition, selection of an app from the first set by the patient with a first portable device (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0005] “Methods of the present invention pertain to prescribed health related applications for use on a portable computing device of a patient that utilize a patient's personal health data to provide improved treatment and diagnosis of the patient (emphasis added).”);
the medical software (see previous citation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Whitehurst into the teaching of Gujarathi to include “the medical application; the medical software.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize prescribed health related applications, for use in treatment or diagnosis, by a physician and allow a patient to choose from those applications in order to provide patients with more flexibility and personalized treatment which also improves patient compliance (Whitehurst, paragraph [0005]).
The combination of Gujarathi and Whitehurst does not explicitly disclose:
determine whether the test version of the medical application satisfies one or more promotion criteria; and
responsive to determining that the test version of the medical application satisfies the one or more promotion criteria, promote the test version of the medical software to a new production version of the medical application.
However, Balmakhtar discloses:
determine whether the test version of the [application] satisfies one or more promotion criteria (col. 3 lines 26-35 “When a new version of an application has been tested [satisfies promotion criteria], it is deemed ready for production and is loaded onto an available production server and put into service. The new version of the application transferred from the test environment to the production environment is officially under configuration control and there are not supposed to be any differences between the final tested version of the application tested in the test environment and the application executing in the production environment (emphasis added).”); and
responsive to determining that the test version of the [application] satisfies the one or more promotion criteria, promote the test version of the [application] to a new production version of the [application] (col. 3 lines 26-35, “When a new version of an application has been tested [satisfies promotion criteria], it is deemed ready for production and is loaded onto an available production server and put into service. The new version of the application transferred from the test environment to the production environment is officially under configuration control and there are not supposed to be any differences between the final tested version of the application tested in the test environment and the application executing in the production environment (emphasis added).”; col. 6 lines 2-8, “The test application 124 may be a new version [test version] of the first version [production version] of the production application 106a. It is understood that the test application 124 may be modified during an on-going testing process many times before it reaches a final approved form and is deemed ready for propagation to the production environment 102 as a second version of the production application 106b (emphasis added).”; col. 7 lines 22-27 & lines 30-34, “The second version of the production application 106b may be similar to the first version of the production application 106a in that it generally provides the same functionality or service but is different in being an updated version of the same basic application […] The second version of the production application 106b may be provided by the test application 124 that has completed testing in the test environment 120 and has been promoted to execution on the shadow role server 130.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Balmakhtar into the combined teachings of Gujarathi and Whitehurst to include “determine whether the test version of the medical application satisfies one or more promotion criteria; and responsive to determining that the test version of the medical application satisfies the one or more promotion criteria, promote the test version of the medical software to a new production version of the medical application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to “thoroughly test and qualify a new version of a computer application in a test environment” before promoting the test version to a production version to avoid the significant risk of introducing errors/bugs into applications when modifying them (Balmakhtar, col. 1 lines 27-38).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gujarathi in view of Whitehurst as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2015/0227363 (hereinafter “Pillgram-Larsen”).
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and discloses Gujarathi “execute the determined version of the [application] (paragraph [0042], “The device can provide or launch the selected version of the application to the user through the client device.”; paragraph [0056], “In embodiments, the client device 202 can execute or run a client application, for example, provided by device 210 to provide access to an application 220 or to enable access to an application 220.”),” but does not explicitly disclose:
determine an additional medical application that depends on the medical application or on which the medical application depends, the additional medical application having a plurality of versions;
determine a version of the plurality of versions of the additional medical application that satisfies one or more additional selection criteria; and
execute the determined version of the additional medical application.
However, Whitehurst discloses:
medical application (abstract, “Methods include selection of a first set of health related apps by a physician for use in treatment or diagnosis of a health condition, selection of an app from the first set by the patient with a first portable device (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0005] “Methods of the present invention pertain to prescribed health related applications for use on a portable computing device of a patient that utilize a patient's personal health data to provide improved treatment and diagnosis of the patient (emphasis added).”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Whitehurst into the teaching of Gujarathi to include “medical application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize prescribed health related applications, for use in treatment or diagnosis, by a physician and allow a patient to choose from those applications in order to provide patients with more flexibility and personalized treatment which also improves patient compliance (Whitehurst, paragraph [0005]).
The combination of Gujarathi and Whitehurst does not explicitly disclose:
determine an additional medical application that depends on the medical application or on which the medical application depends, the additional medical application having a plurality of versions;
determine a version of the plurality of versions of the additional medical application that satisfies one or more additional selection criteria; and
execute the determined version of the additional medical application.
However, Pillgram-Larsen discloses:
determine an additional [application] that depends on the [application] or on which the [application] depends, the additional [application] having a plurality of versions (paragraph [0012], “In software development, a computer-implemented product (or a "computing application") may include a collection of heterogeneous artifacts assembled together for the purpose of providing a particular software functionality. Often, during the development of a computer-implemented product (hereinafter also a "product"), rather than writing every single line of code expressly for the product, developers may use certain software development artifacts (e.g., units of code) that are not part of the product in order to accomplish a particular functionality of the product (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0014], “When dependencies are declared at the product level, a first product may have a dependency on a particular version of a second product. Before declaring the dependency of the first product on the particular version of the second product, the dependency management system may test and verify that the particular version of the second product functions properly (e.g., the components of the particular version of the second product work with each other) (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0034], “In various example embodiments, the second product has a plurality of versions […] In some example embodiments, the version selection rule may require selecting the highest version of the second product (emphasis added).”; abstract, “A determination may be made, based on the dependency specification, that the first product has a dependency on a second product.”);
determine a version of the plurality of versions of the additional [application] that satisfies one or more additional selection criteria (paragraph [0014], “When dependencies are declared at the product level, a first product may have a dependency on a particular version of a second product. Before declaring the dependency of the first product on the particular version of the second product, the dependency management system may test and verify that the particular version of the second product functions properly (e.g., the components of the particular version of the second product work with each other) (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0034], “In various example embodiments, the second product has a plurality of versions […] In some example embodiments, the version selection rule may require selecting the highest version of the second product (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0032], “An example version selection rule may specify the selection of the highest available version of all versions of a product. Another example version selection rule may require the selection of the highest available version among a range of versions of the product. A version selection rule may utilize a wild card "*" to indicate the selection of the highest available version among a range of versions. For example, the rule may state "use 1.*.*." At build time, the dependency management system may pick the highest available version number that matches this pattern (emphasis added).”); and
the determined version of the additional [application] (paragraph [0034], “In various example embodiments, the second product has a plurality of versions […] In some example embodiments, the version selection rule may require selecting the highest version of the second product (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0032], “An example version selection rule may specify the selection of the highest available version of all versions of a product. Another example version selection rule may require the selection of the highest available version among a range of versions of the product. A version selection rule may utilize a wild card "*" to indicate the selection of the highest available version among a range of versions. For example, the rule may state "use 1.*.*." At build time, the dependency management system may pick the highest available version number that matches this pattern (emphasis added).”).
Pillgram-Larsen is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the selection of dependency versions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Pillgram-Larsen into the combined teachings of Gujarathi and Whitehurst to include “determine an additional medical application that depends on the medical application or on which the medical application depends, the additional medical application having a plurality of versions; determine a version of the plurality of versions of the additional medical application that satisfies one or more additional selection criteria; and execute the determined version of the additional medical application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to identify a valid version of a dependency that is compatible with an application to effectively avoid dependency problems that may negatively affect execution/build of an application (Pillgram-Larsen, paragraphs [0002 & 0030]).
As per Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 7 is incorporated; and Gujarathi discloses “second version of the [application] (paragraph [0073], “The device 210 can determine if the first version 222 indicated by the order is available and select the first version 222 […] If the first version 222 indicated is not available, the device 210 can continue to the next or subsequent version indicated by the order until the device 210 identifies a version 222 available to the user of the client device 202 and/or the client device 202.”; abstract, “A computing device can receive a request from a client device to launch an application. The request can include an identifier that indicates multiple versions of the application are accessible in which to launch the application.”; paragraph [0042], “For example, the device can identify different versions of an application available or accessible to a user of a client device, including but not limited to, local versions, hosted versions and/or SaaS versions.”),” but does not explicitly disclose:
determining that the version of the additional medical application is a highest version of the additional medical application that is associated with the second version of the medical application.
However, Whitehurst discloses:
medical application (abstract, “Methods include selection of a first set of health related apps by a physician for use in treatment or diagnosis of a health condition, selection of an app from the first set by the patient with a first portable device (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0005] “Methods of the present invention pertain to prescribed health related applications for use on a portable computing device of a patient that utilize a patient's personal health data to provide improved treatment and diagnosis of the patient (emphasis added).”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Whitehurst into the teaching of Gujarathi to include “medical application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize prescribed health related applications, for use in treatment or diagnosis, by a physician and allow a patient to choose from those applications in order to provide patients with more flexibility and personalized treatment which also improves patient compliance (Whitehurst, paragraph [0005]).
The combination of Gujarathi and Whitehurst does not explicitly disclose:
determining that the version of the additional medical application is a highest version of the additional medical application that is associated with the second version of the medical application.
However, Pillgram-Larsen discloses:
determining that the version of the additional [application] is a highest version of the additional [application] that is associated with the [version] of the [application] (paragraph [0032], “An example version selection rule may specify the selection of the highest available version of all versions of a product. Another example version selection rule may require the selection of the highest available version among a range of versions of the product. A version selection rule may utilize a wild card "*" to indicate the selection of the highest available version among a range of versions. For example, the rule may state "use 1.*.*." At build time, the dependency management system may pick the highest available version number that matches this pattern (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0034], “In various example embodiments, the second product has a plurality of versions […] In some example embodiments, the version selection rule may require selecting the highest version of the second product.”; paragraph [0014], “When dependencies are declared at the product level, a first product may have a dependency on a particular version of a second product (emphasis added).”; abstract, “A determination may be made, based on the dependency specification, that the first product has a dependency on a second product.”; paragraph [0012], “In software development, a computer-implemented product (or a "computing application") may include a collection of heterogeneous artifacts assembled together for the purpose of providing a particular software functionality (emphasis added).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Pillgram-Larsen into the combined teachings of Gujarathi and Whitehurst to include “determining that the version of the additional medical application is a highest version of the additional medical application that is associated with the second version of the medical application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select a highest version of an application to ensure the most recent version available is utilized to keep the application up-to-date (Pillgram-Larsen, paragraphs [0021 & 0032]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gujarathi in view of Whitehurst as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2010/0100966 (hereinafter “Hamid”).
As per Claim 9, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Gujarathi discloses “the one or more selection criteria (paragraph [0003], “The device can, responsive to the icon selection, identify and determine a version of the application to provide to the user based in part on a context of the user (e.g., location, device), context of a client device, and/or attributes of the selected application.”; paragraph [0025], “The attributes (e.g., access rules) for the application can include restrictions on types of users, restrictions on types of devices, restrictions on access times, and/or restrictions based in part on connection properties.”; paragraph [0026], “In embodiments, the device can select a version of the application to provide or launch for the user based in part on the generated score value for a user and/or client device. The device can determine whether to allow/provide access to a version of an application or deny/prevent access to one or more versions of an application based in part on the context of the user and/or the client device and/or the attributes of the application.”),” but does not explicitly disclose:
determine whether the second version of the medical application is on a blacklist, wherein an execution criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied by the second version of the medical application not being on the blacklist.
However, Whitehurst discloses:
the medical application (abstract, “Methods include selection of a first set of health related apps by a physician for use in treatment or diagnosis of a health condition, selection of an app from the first set by the patient with a first portable device (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0005] “Methods of the present invention pertain to prescribed health related applications for use on a portable computing device of a patient that utilize a patient's personal health data to provide improved treatment and diagnosis of the patient (emphasis added).”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Whitehurst into the teaching of Gujarathi to include “the medical application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize prescribed health related applications, for use in treatment or diagnosis, by a physician and allow a patient to choose from those applications in order to provide patients with more flexibility and personalized treatment which also improves patient compliance (Whitehurst, paragraph [0005]).
The combination of Gujarathi and Whitehurst does not explicitly disclose:
determine whether the second version of the medical application is on a blacklist, wherein an execution criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied by the second version of the medical application not being on the blacklist.
However, Hamid discloses:
determine whether the second version of the [application] is on a blacklist, wherein an execution criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied by the second version of the [application] not being on the blacklist (Figure 4; paragraph [0033], “At 409, when the version is blacklisted, it is not executed and, optionally, an error message is returned to a user at 411. At 413, when the version of the document is other than blacklisted, the programming is executed on the processor.”; paragraph [0034], “In the above described embodiment, the blacklist data indicates one or more versions of the application.”).
Hamid is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the blacklisting of application versions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hamid into the combined teachings of Gujarathi and Whitehurst to include “determine whether the second version of the medical application is on a blacklist, wherein an execution criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied by the second version of the medical application not being on the blacklist.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize a blacklist in determining whether versions of an application can be executed in order to ensure incompatible or flawed (contains errors) versions are not executed which helps improve proper execution of applications and improve security by preventing flaws from being exploited (Hamid, paragraphs [0024 & 0033]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gujarathi in view of Whitehurst as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0004297 (“Scrivner”).
As per Claim 12, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Gujarathi discloses “the second version of the [application] (paragraph [0073], “The device 210 can determine if the first version 222 indicated by the order is available and select the first version 222 […] If the first version 222 indicated is not available, the device 210 can continue to the next or subsequent version indicated by the order until the device 210 identifies a version 222 available to the user of the client device 202 and/or the client device 202.”; abstract, “A computing device can receive a request from a client device to launch an application. The request can include an identifier that indicates multiple versions of the application are accessible in which to launch the application.”; paragraph [0042], “For example, the device can identify different versions of an application available or accessible to a user of a client device, including but not limited to, local versions, hosted versions and/or SaaS versions.”),” but does not explicitly disclose:
determine a number of instances of the second version of the medical application being run; and
determine whether the number of instances of the second version of the medical application is below a threshold, wherein an execution criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied by the number of instances of the second version of the medical application being below the threshold.
However, Whitehurst discloses:
the medical application (abstract, “Methods include selection of a first set of health related apps by a physician for use in treatment or diagnosis of a health condition, selection of an app from the first set by the patient with a first portable device (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0005] “Methods of the present invention pertain to prescribed health related applications for use on a portable computing device of a patient that utilize a patient's personal health data to provide improved treatment and diagnosis of the patient (emphasis added).”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Whitehurst into the teaching of Gujarathi to include “the medical application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize prescribed health related applications, for use in treatment or diagnosis, by a physician and allow a patient to choose from those applications in order to provide patients with more flexibility and personalized treatment which also improves patient compliance (Whitehurst, paragraph [0005]).
The combination of Gujarathi and Whitehurst does not explicitly disclose:
determine a number of instances of the second version of the medical application being run; and
determine whether the number of instances of the second version of the medical application is below a threshold, wherein an execution criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied by the number of instances of the second version of the medical application being below the threshold.
However, Scrivner discloses:
determine a number of instances of the [compute instances] being run (paragraph [0103], “Additionally, or alternatively, the cluster manager can automatically provision a new compute instance based on a rule or configuration. In an example, configuration for a cluster identifies a minimum number of compute instances, and the cluster manager automatically provisions a new compute instance if a number of healthy compute instances running in the cluster is below the minimum number of compute instances […] For example, the cluster manager can provision a new compute instance that automatically executes a script that executes an operating system command that executes a new node agent (emphasis added).”); and
determine whether the number of instances of the [compute instances] is below a threshold, wherein an execution criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied by the number of instances of the [compute instances] being below the threshold (paragraph [0103], “Additionally, or alternatively, the cluster manager can automatically provision a new compute instance based on a rule or configuration. In an example, configuration for a cluster identifies a minimum number of compute instances, and the cluster manager automatically provisions a new compute instance if a number of healthy compute instances running in the cluster is below the minimum number of compute instances […] For example, the cluster manager can provision a new compute instance that automatically executes a script that executes an operating system command that executes a new node agent (emphasis added).”).
Scrivner is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the tracking of running component instances.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Scrivner into the combined teachings of Gujarathi and Whitehurst to include “determine a number of instances of the second version of the medical application being run; and determine whether the number of instances of the second version of the medical application is below a threshold, wherein an execution criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied by the number of instances of the second version of the medical application being below the threshold.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to monitor the number of running instances of a component in order to effectively provision/execute more components when the number falls below a threshold to ensure adequate scaling and performance is achieved (Scrivner, paragraph [0103]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gujarathi in view of Whitehurst as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 10,079,835 (“Dodke”).
As per Claim 13, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Gujarathi discloses “any version of the [application] (abstract, “The request can include an identifier that indicates multiple versions of the application are accessible in which to launch the application.”),” “wherein a criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied base on at least one of a) [the location having been approved] (paragraph [0003], “The device can, responsive to the icon selection, identify and determine a version of the application to provide to the user based in part on a context of the user (e.g., location, device), context of a client device, and/or attributes of the selected application.”; paragraph [0086], “For example, in embodiments, the criteria can indicate that the user is permitted access to a version 222 of the application 220 based in part on the user of the client device 202 having an appropriate authorization level, the client device 202 being a compliant type of device (e.g., includes required security credentials, security protections), the client device 202 is within an approved geo-location and/or the request 2108 was received within an approved time range.”; paragraph [0042], “The device can provide or launch the selected version of the application to the user through the client device.”),” and “the second version of the [application] (paragraph [0073], “The device 210 can determine if the first version 222 indicated by the order is available and select the first version 222 […] If the first version 222 indicated is not available, the device 210 can continue to the next or subsequent version indicated by the order until the device 210 identifies a version 222 available to the user of the client device 202 and/or the client device 202.”; abstract, “A computing device can receive a request from a client device to launch an application. The request can include an identifier that indicates multiple versions of the application are accessible in which to launch the application.”; paragraph [0042], “For example, the device can identify different versions of an application available or accessible to a user of a client device, including but not limited to, local versions, hosted versions and/or SaaS versions.”),” but does not explicitly disclose:
determine a patient record to be accessed by the medical application; and
determine whether the patient record was previously accessed using any version of the medical application, wherein a criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied base on at least one of a) the patient record having been previously accessed by the second version of the medical application or b) the patient record not having been accessed by any other version of the medical application.
However, Whitehurst discloses:
determine a patient record to be accessed by the medical application (paragraph [0040], “In one aspect, the first-party framework 103 identifies health information data authorized by the patient for use by the selected prescribed application as Authorized Data 150 […] Typically, once authorization and permissions are set by the patient, or once the default authorizations or permissions are accepted, no further authorization or permissions are needed during subsequent use of the selected prescribed applications to allow the selected prescribed application to access the authorized patient data and/or to communicate the authorized health data or processed derivate data to the physician for use in treatment and/or diagnosis (emphasis added).”);
the patient record (see previous citation); and
the medical application (see previous citation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Whitehurst into the teaching of Gujarathi to include “determine a patient record to be accessed by the medical application; the patient record; and the medical application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize authorizations/permissions for a medical application to access authorized patient data to ensure sensitive patient information is only accessed by authorized applications (Whitehurst, paragraph [0040]).
The combination of Gujarathi and Whitehurst does not explicitly disclose:
determine whether the patient record was previously accessed using any version of the medical application, wherein a criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied base on at least one of a) the patient record having been previously accessed by the second version of the medical application or b) the patient record not having been accessed by any other version of the medical application.
However, Dodke discloses:
determine whether the [sensitive data] was previously accessed using [the application] (col. 10 lines 58-65 & col. 11 lines 1-7, “In general, flagging module 108 may flag the application to indicate a switch from a state in which the application has not accessed any sensitive data and, therefore, can be trusted to not output any sensitive data because that would be impossible (i.e., the application cannot output sensitive data that the application has never accessed or possessed) to a state in which the application has accessed at least some sensitive data […] In other words, the disclosed systems and methods herein may assume that any obfuscated data object output by an application in a state in which the application has previously accessed sensitive data is untrusted and/or contains the sensitive data and, therefore, should be blocked (or some other remedial action should be performed).”);
the [sensitive data] having been previously accessed by the [application] (see previous citation).
Dodke is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the tracking of application access to certain data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Dodke into the combined teachings of Gujarathi and Whitehurst to include “determine whether the patient record was previously accessed using any version of the medical application, wherein a criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied base on at least one of a) the patient record having been previously accessed by the second version of the medical application or b) the patient record not having been accessed by any other version of the medical application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to detect whether an application has previously accessed sensitive information in order to effectively prevent data loss of sensitive information by taking remedial action based on the determination an application accessed sensitive data (Dodke, abstract, col. 1 lines 36-42, & col. 11 lines 1-7).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gujarathi in view of Whitehurst as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2023/0258731 (“Lu”).
As per Claim 14, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Gujarathi discloses “wherein an execution criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied (paragraph [0003], “The device can, responsive to the icon selection, identify and determine a version of the application to provide to the user based in part on a context of the user (e.g., location, device), context of a client device, and/or attributes of the selected application.”; paragraph [0025], “The attributes (e.g., access rules) for the application can include restrictions on types of users, restrictions on types of devices, restrictions on access times, and/or restrictions based in part on connection properties.”; paragraph [0026], “In embodiments, the device can select a version of the application to provide or launch for the user based in part on the generated score value for a user and/or client device. The device can determine whether to allow/provide access to a version of an application or deny/prevent access to one or more versions of an application based in part on the context of the user and/or the client device and/or the attributes of the application.”; paragraph [0042], “The device can provide or launch the selected version of the application to the user through the client device.”; paragraph [0056], “In embodiments, the client device 202 can execute or run a client application, for example, provided by device 210 to provide access to an application 220 or to enable access to an application 220.”),” but does not explicitly disclose:
determine a number of problems associated with the second version of the medical application; and
determine whether the number of problems associated with the second version of the medical application is below a threshold, wherein an execution criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied by the number of problems associated with the second version of the medical application being below the threshold.
However, Whitehurst discloses:
the medical application (abstract, “Methods include selection of a first set of health related apps by a physician for use in treatment or diagnosis of a health condition, selection of an app from the first set by the patient with a first portable device (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0005] “Methods of the present invention pertain to prescribed health related applications for use on a portable computing device of a patient that utilize a patient's personal health data to provide improved treatment and diagnosis of the patient (emphasis added).”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Whitehurst into the teaching of Gujarathi to include “the medical application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize prescribed health related applications, for use in treatment or diagnosis, by a physician and allow a patient to choose from those applications in order to provide patients with more flexibility and personalized treatment which also improves patient compliance (Whitehurst, paragraph [0005]).
The combination of Gujarathi and Whitehurst does not explicitly disclose:
determine a number of problems associated with the second version of the medical application; and
determine whether the number of problems associated with the second version of the medical application is below a threshold, wherein an execution criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied by the number of problems associated with the second version of the medical application being below the threshold.
However, Lu discloses:
determine a number of problems associated with the second version of the [software] (paragraph [0058], “For example, the server 130 may receive an increased number of error notifications from an FES processor 110 following a software upgrade to the FES processor 110 […] In response, the server 130 may downgrade the software version running on the FES processor 110 to an older version of software that produced a lower number of errors than the current software version.”); and
determine whether the number of problems associated with the second version of the [software] is below a threshold, wherein an [execution criterion] is satisfied by the number of problems associated with the second version of the [software] being below the threshold (paragraph [0058], “For example, the server 130 may receive an increased number of error notifications from an FES processor 110 following a software upgrade to the FES processor 110 […] In response, the server 130 may downgrade the software version running on the FES processor 110 to an older version of software that produced a lower number of errors than the current software version.”).
Lu is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the tracking of the number of errors associated with versions of software.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lu into the combined teachings of Gujarathi and Whitehurst to include “determine a number of problems associated with the second version of the medical application; and determine whether the number of problems associated with the second version of the medical application is below a threshold, wherein an execution criterion of the one or more selection criteria is satisfied by the number of problems associated with the second version of the medical application being below the threshold.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to execute a version of software with fewer errors than a currently running version in order for the software to operate more reliably (Lu, paragraph [0058]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gujarathi in view of Whitehurst as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0079714 (“Paraketsov”).
As per Claim 17, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Gujarathi and Whitehurst does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the medical application comprises at least one of a restorative dental treatment planning application or an orthodontic treatment planning operation.
However, Paraketsov discloses:
wherein the medical application comprises at least one of a restorative dental treatment planning application or an orthodontic treatment planning operation (paragraph [0052], “The optional treatment modeling engine(s) 168 may be configured to use the 3D model to store and/or provide instructions to implement orthodontic treatment plans and/or the results of orthodontic treatment plans.”; paragraph [0054] “The engines described herein, or the engines through which the systems and devices described herein can be implemented, can be cloud-based engines. As used herein, a cloud-based engine is an engine that can run applications and/or functionalities using a cloud-based computing system.”).
Paraketsov is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the utilization of an orthodontic treatment application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Paraketsov into the combined teachings of Gujarathi and Whitehurst to include “wherein the medical application comprises at least one of a restorative dental treatment planning application or an orthodontic treatment planning operation.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize system with an orthodontic treatment planning application in order to improve the accuracy and efficiency of automatic dental model generation and segmentation by providing instructions to implement treatment plans and utilizing automated agents that automatically generate segmented dental models (Paraketsov, paragraphs [0007 & 0052]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gujarathi in view of Whitehurst as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0225915 (“Wong”).
As per Claim 18, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Gujarathi discloses “the one or more selection criteria (paragraph [0003], “The device can, responsive to the icon selection, identify and determine a version of the application to provide to the user based in part on a context of the user (e.g., location, device), context of a client device, and/or attributes of the selected application.”; paragraph [0025], “The attributes (e.g., access rules) for the application can include restrictions on types of users, restrictions on types of devices, restrictions on access times, and/or restrictions based in part on connection properties.”; paragraph [0026], “In embodiments, the device can select a version of the application to provide or launch for the user based in part on the generated score value for a user and/or client device. The device can determine whether to allow/provide access to a version of an application or deny/prevent access to one or more versions of an application based in part on the context of the user and/or the client device and/or the attributes of the application.”),” but the combination of Gujarathi and Whitehurst does not explicitly disclose:
receive instructions to configure the one or more selection criteria;
translate the instructions into a programming language; and
update the one or more selection criteria based on the translated instructions.
However, Wong discloses:
receive instructions to configure the [code] (paragraph [0016] “As further shown in FIG. 1A, and by reference number 110, the conversion platform may receive, from the client device, the information identifying the code of the first code type and the instruction to convert the code of the first code type to code of a second code type.”);
translate the instructions into a programming language (paragraph [0016], “As further shown in FIG. 1A, and by reference number 110, the conversion platform may receive, from the client device, the information identifying the code of the first code type and the instruction to convert the code of the first code type to code of a second code type.”; paragraph [0012] “In this way, code of a first code type (e.g., a COBOL code type), provided on a mainframe device, is converted in phases to code of a second code type (e.g., a Java code type) before the mainframe device is taken offline.”); and
update the [code] based on the translated instructions (paragraph [0011] “For example, the conversion platform may receive information indicating code of a first code type to convert in phases to code of a second code type for execution on a mainframe device, wherein the first code type may be different than the second code type.”; paragraph [0012] “In this way, code of a first code type (e.g., a COBOL code type), provided on a mainframe device, is converted in phases to code of a second code type (e.g., a Java code type) before the mainframe device is taken offline.”).
Wong is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding translating instructions into a programming language.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Wong into the combined teachings of Gujarathi and Whitehurst to include “receive instructions to configure the one or more selection criteria; translate the instructions into a programming language; and update the one or more selection criteria based on the translated instructions.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to translate instructions into a programming language in order to achieve increased efficiency and/or other advantages of the programming language; moreover, translating in phases can help prevent the generation of code errors associated with converting instructions/code all at once (Wong, paragraphs [0010 & 0012]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gujarathi in view of Whitehurst as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2013/0346960 (“Gupta”).
As per Claim 19, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Gujarathi discloses “the one or more selection criteria (paragraph [0003], “The device can, responsive to the icon selection, identify and determine a version of the application to provide to the user based in part on a context of the user (e.g., location, device), context of a client device, and/or attributes of the selected application.”; paragraph [0025], “The attributes (e.g., access rules) for the application can include restrictions on types of users, restrictions on types of devices, restrictions on access times, and/or restrictions based in part on connection properties.”; paragraph [0026], “In embodiments, the device can select a version of the application to provide or launch for the user based in part on the generated score value for a user and/or client device. The device can determine whether to allow/provide access to a version of an application or deny/prevent access to one or more versions of an application based in part on the context of the user and/or the client device and/or the attributes of the application.”)” and “any of the plurality of versions of the [application] (abstract, “The request can include an identifier that indicates multiple versions of the application are accessible in which to launch the application.”),” but does not explicitly disclose:
update the one or more selection criteria without redeployment or reinstallation of any of the plurality of versions of the medical application.
However, Whitehurst discloses:
the medical application (abstract, “Methods include selection of a first set of health related apps by a physician for use in treatment or diagnosis of a health condition, selection of an app from the first set by the patient with a first portable device (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0005] “Methods of the present invention pertain to prescribed health related applications for use on a portable computing device of a patient that utilize a patient's personal health data to provide improved treatment and diagnosis of the patient (emphasis added).”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Whitehurst into the teaching of Gujarathi to include “the medical application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize prescribed health related applications, for use in treatment or diagnosis, by a physician and allow a patient to choose from those applications in order to provide patients with more flexibility and personalized treatment which also improves patient compliance (Whitehurst, paragraph [0005]).
The combination of Gujarathi and Whitehurst does not explicitly disclose:
update the one or more selection criteria without redeployment or reinstallation of any of the plurality of versions of the medical application.
However, Gupta discloses:
update the one or more [pages] without redeployment or reinstallation of [the application] (paragraph [0022], “System 300 further includes an update module 330 for updating the one or more pages residing on the computing apparatus with the updatable version of the one or more pages, thereby updating the application residing on the computing apparatus without re-installing the application.”).
Gupta is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding updating a component without reinstallation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Gupta into the combined teachings of Gujarathi and Whitehurst to include “update the one or more selection criteria without redeployment or reinstallation of any of the plurality of versions of the medical application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to update a component without reinstallation of an application in order to reduce unnecessary bandwidth consumption associated with downloading an entire application (Gupta, paragraphs [0003 & 0022]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Feven H. Huruy whose telephone number is (571) 272-3826. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui can be reached at (571) 272-3708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/F.H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2191 /WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights